― 45 ―

論　文

The Use of Puns in Advertising

Folake Abass

要　　旨

「パン（pun）」とは，会話における一般的なスタイルであり，広告によく用いられる趣向である。概して，「パン（pun）」は高次元の知的産物とはみなされず，そのような理由から真剣に取り扱われてはこなかった。しかし，自分の出した広告を目立たせなければならないというプレッシャーにさらされている広告主にとっては，「パン（pun）」の使用は広告を創造的なものにし，結果として，広告を印象深いものにする一つの方法である。本論は，見る者の注意をひきつけ，広告をよりアピール力のあるものにするために，どのように「パン（pun）」が作用しているかを議論していく。本論で使用される広告は様々な英語雑誌で実際に掲載されているものである。

Keywords: pun（だじゃれ）， advertising（広告）， language（言語）， communication （コミュニケーション），influence（影響），persuasion（説得力）

Abstract

The pun is a common figure of speech and it is a device often employed in advertising. As advertisers are under increased pressure to make their products stand out so as to attract the attention of potential buyers, through the use of puns, advertisers manipulate language so as to enable a reader of a particular ad to linger longer over it and ultimately

― 46 ―

愛知大学　言語と文化　No. 16

buy the product. This article will show how advertisers use puns to communicate and the possible meanings that are conveyed through this usage. The ads for this article have been taken from English language magazines.

The Use of Puns in Advertising.

The use of rhetorical figures has long been a strategy employed within advertising and as this usage has become more and more pervasive, advertisers are under increasing pressure to make their products stand out from the clutter of other advertisements (ads). To this end, advertisers quite deliberately and cleverly exploit and manipulate language as they try to construct ads that will grab the attention of potential consumers. However, unless a consumer has a particular interest in a given product, advertising invades the consciousness only furtively (Langholz-Leymore 1987, p. 324). Hence the primary function of rhetorical figures in advertising is to “get across key selling points to desired prospects in a manner that attracts attention and stimulates them to give serious consideration to the product” (Leigh 1994, p. 17). It can therefore be said that the pervasiveness of rhetorical figures in advertising has persuasion at its root and as such, this usage strives not only to attract the attention of potential consumers; or even inform them; but fundamentally to persuade them that theirs (the advertisers) is a product worth having.

Thornborrow (1998, p. 258) states ads of all kind are “social, cultural products which derive much of their impact from non-literal meanings” and in acknowledging that a major goal of advertising is not only to inform but also to persuade, the use of rhetorical figures plays a pivotal role within the advertising process. As the central concern of rhetoric has always been method and manner, advertisers are faced with the dilemma of discovering the most effective way to express a thought in a given situation, and then to alter its expression to suit a variety of situations (McQuarrie & Mick 1996, p. 424). Advertisers therefore attempt to construct ads that will capture the attention of a potential consumer and which will have a persuasive effect. To this end, advertisers use language “in as clever, tight, stylized, and suasive a way as they can to persuade someone to go out and buy the product [. . .]” (Harris, p. 1). Scholars within the field of consumer research have long maintained that advertising is far less concerned with

PUNS

― 47 ―

informing potential consumers of the validity of a given product, and more concerned with persuading them to buy that product. Vorlat (1976, p. 291) claims that advertising is “essentially a persuasive speech act” nevertheless, before an ad can influence a potential consumer, the advertiser must first persuade them to notice it. An integral way that this is made manifest is through language and specifically, figurative language.

Figurative Language

Language as a whole is a vital tool in advertising as it allows advertisers to communicate with their audience on a number of levels and quite knowingly, this language is being used to sell us. Vorlat (1976, p. 291) considers advertising

to constitute a system of functionally interacting linguisticand non-linguistic features, which are to convey a messageabout a product or service, so that the prospective consumergets information and, which is more important, becomespersuaded that he should buy it or make use of it.

Rhetorical figures have traditionally been defined as artful deviations and when applied to advertising, the “inherent incongruity of rhetorical devices allows them to carry additional meaning(s) [. . .]” (Tom & Eves 1999, p. 40).1 The concept of meaning is complicated since it “can never be specified as each interpreter brings a reservoir of personal interests and experiences that introduces various degrees of nonconvergence and idiosyncrasy into the communication process” (McQuarrie & Mick 1992, p. 181). Accordingly, a hearer will make their own deductions based on a particular utterance in order to assign meaning to it. Redfern (1982, p. 270) makes the point that meaning should be mathematical and unambiguous but as there are many words within the English language that have more than one meaning, ambiguity is inevitable. Meaning specifically as it pertains to figurative language can be elusive because of its ambiguous nature. This allows advertisers to take advantage of language by making elaborate claims about their products whilst playing with words and distorting their literal meanings. Through this, it can be said that figurative language is rhetorical language in that it tries to create effects by breaking or exploiting language rules (Dyer 1982,

1 Incongruity means that the structure of an advertising text deviates from expectations.

― 48 ―

愛知大学　言語と文化　No. 16

p. 152). Consequently, rhetoric becomes an expression that systematically deviates from expectation through a departure from convention whilst communicating a multitude of meanings. This deviation can be seen as a “swerve or departure – a way of marking text” (McQuarrie & Mick 1996, p. 426). These rhetorical figures take the forms of various figures of speech such as metaphor, irony and other tropes and each has a distinct structure and the potential to enhance persuasion in the buying process of a product. It has been posited by rhetoricians that any proposition can be expressed in a variety of ways, and that in any given situation one of the ways will be most effective in swaying an audience towards purchasing a particular product (McQuarrie & Mick 1992, p. 425).

From a rhetorical standpoint then, in order to increase the persuasive effect of an ad, “the manner in which a statement is expressed may be more important than its prepositional content” (ibid). Durand (1987, p. 295) considers a rhetorical figure as a transformation from a simple proposition to a figurative proposition and these sets of propositions allow the reader of an ad to make inferences relating to its contexts.” As a deviation with respect to specific or general expectations, any figure carries at least one additional meaning beyond its immediate meaning and this duality of meaning could account for the frequency of these figures in advertising. Thus figurative language and language in general becomes polysemous in its usage and this allows extra meaning to be conveyed depending on a particular context. This is especially true in ads where advertisers deliberately and intentionally manipulate language so as to communicate multiple meanings that then require the reader/viewer extra processing time to assign meaning to the ads. Therefore, the impact of a given ad comes not from what is communicated but how it is communicated.

The creative interplay of language and thought is particularly evident in figurative language and this practice is not rare or limited to poetic situations but rather is a ubiquitous characteristic of speech (Katz et al. 1998, p. 3). Gibbs (1994, p. 1) states that human cognition is fundamentally shaped by various poetic or figurative processes and as such, metaphors, puns, and other tropes are not “linguistic distortions of literal mental thought but constitute basic schemes by which people conceptualise their experiences and the external world.” Fogelin (1988, p. 23) takes a different line from

PUNS

― 49 ―

Gibbs stating that

Tropes depart from, and often violate, our rules for normal waysof speaking. They gain their rhetorical force by inducing amutually recognized correction or adjustment in the respondent,and the indirect content of each trope is determined by this mutuallyrecognized corrective judgment.

Nonetheless, the use of figurative language is not always clear or precise and as Verschueren (1995, p. 128) points out, “in no case is it possible for a language to say everything that the speaker wishes to say.” In terms of the communication process, there are many linguistic choices available to communicate with ranging from the explicit to the implicit (Yus 1999, p. 487). In either case,

the utterances chosen are often less fine-grained than the actual thoughts [. . .] that the speaker intends to communicatewith these utterances, which implies that a certain percentageof success in human conversational interaction is the hearer’sin supplying the missing elements in the speaker’s utterance (ibid).

Hence in trying to arrive at the meaning of a particular utterance, a hearer is left to interpret a speaker’s intention by a process of elimination based on the “said and unsaid” (Bertuccelli Papi 1996, p. 191). Although the notion of meaning is crucial to language, as mentioned above, it is not without its complexities. In communication, language performs a variety of functions and in order to fully participate in the communication process, the discourse goals of the speaker have to be established. Roberts and Kreuz (1994, p. 159) make the point that, “understanding when and why an utterance is produced is crucial in understanding its meaning” and in terms of speech act theory, an utterance is understood only when the underlying goals behind it are recognized. In spite of this, the meaning-making process is not made any easier as meaning “can never be specified because each interpreter brings a reservoir of personal interests and experiences that introduces various degrees of non-convergence and idiosyncrasy into the communication process” (McQuarrie & Mick 1992, p. 181). Thus every communication encounter sets up expectations as it proceeds, and more general expectations that hold across encounters function as conventions or constraints (Grice 1989). It can then be said that the gap between the linguistically encoded

― 50 ―

愛知大学　言語と文化　No. 16

meaning of a sentence and what is actually communicated by uttering the sentence on a given occasion is filled by inference and subsequently, a hearer will make their own deductions from an utterance in order to assign meaning to it (Tanaka 1994, p. 15).

In terms of figurative meaning, the general assumption is that

people understand figurative language by first analyzing theliteral meaning of a sentence before they infer the intendedfigurative meaning by deriving an interpretation that makesthe utterance adhere to the principle of cooperativecommunication (Gibbs et al. 1993, p387).

Under this view, it is posited that figurative language requires further cognitive effort because such utterances violate conversational norms (Grice 1975). Traditionally, the old belief has been that literal language is a “veridical reflection of thought and the external world, while figurative language distorts reality and only serves special rhetorical purposes Gibbs et al 1993, p. 388).” Thus people are able to identify figurative language as being distinct from literal language and in so doing, listeners know what to do when a speaker violates a convention, that is, they search for a context that will render the violation intelligible (Sperber & Wilson 1998). As a result, the assumption has been that activation of literal meaning is obligatory, that is, “literal meaning has priority over non-literal meaning” (Keysar 1994, p. 249). Simply put, a reader or listener will process the literal meaning of an utterance or sentence first and then seek a non-literal one if a violation is detected. It should be noted that it is possible for both literal and figurative meanings to be processed in parallel even though, only one meaning is intended by the speaker or writer. Keysar (1994, p. 248) states that, “one goal of comprehension is to arrive at the meaning that was most probably intended; to identify a meaning to be integrated with the remainder of the text.”

In print advertising, the use of tropes provides viewers with incomplete information or vague and implied messages that do not mean exactly what they say or say exactly what they mean. To effectively comprehend these messages, viewers are required to resolve the inconsistencies within the message and assign the appropriate subjective meaning. With figurative language and especially in relation to the context

PUNS

― 51 ―

of advertising, if an ad does not make literal sense, a figurative one will be assumed. To arrive at a particular meaning of an ad, a reader will then make interpretations based on what is mutually known or the cultural conventions that exist to assign meaning to it. All figurative language is conveyed by comparisons between similar entities, although it is not presented in precisely the same way and it is this diversity that adds to their appeal in advertising. Metaphors and puns are the most frequently used figures of speech in ads and through this usage advertisers are able to control the manner in which a message is communicated. For the purpose of this paper however, I will be focusing on puns and my analysis of them is intended to show how advertisers communicate using this figure of speech and how they function to attract attention and make ads more appealing. In addition the possible meanings that are conveyed to a given audience through such usage will be explored.

The Pun

Culler (1988, p. 4) asserts that the pun is an exemplary product of language or mind and as such, it should be taken as a paradigm for the play of language. Depending on similarity of form and disparity of meaning, a pun evokes disparate meanings in contexts where each applies differently (ibid). In the most general of terms then, a pun is a form of speech play in which a word or phrase unexpectedly and simultaneously combines two unrelated meanings. The Oxford English Dictionary, defines the pun as:

The use of a word in such a way as to suggest two or more meaningsor different associations, or the use of two or more words of the sameor nearly the same sound with different meanings, so as to produce ahumourous effect; a play on words.2

The first documented usage of the pun is attributed to John Dryden (1631–1700) a classic literature writer who used it in his first play, The Wild Gallant in 1662.3 However punning goes back much further than that and to as early as Homer. Since then writers and poets alike of all ilk have used puns in their work and continue to do so for dramatic effect as it provides them with an opportunity to play with words and also

2 Oxford English Dictionary. 1st Edition. 1933. 3 Ibid.

― 52 ―

愛知大学　言語と文化　No. 16

because puns illuminate language (Redfern 1984, p. 11). The most popular of punsters can be said to be Shakespeare who is renowned for his usage of puns especially in his comedies. Despite this pervasiveness, punning is considered “crass” and regarded as a very low form of humor (Ahl 1988, p. 22). As Redfern (1984, p. 5) puts it, “puns are bastards, immigrants, barbarians, extra-terrestrials: they intrude, they infiltrate.” In effect, they are inferior, accidental and need to be apologized for (ibid). However, given the bad reputation that has befallen the pun, it is still one of the most common forms of word play and because of this, puns are one of the figures of speech most often used in advertising. When it comes to deciphering the coded message embedded in an ad, the object is to impress the receiver with the cleverness of the person seeking to publicise himself in this way and, incidentally, to let the receiver congratulate himself on his astuteness in correctly reading the puzzle (Redfern 1982, p. 273).

Ads use fiction, word play, compressed storytelling, stylized acting, photography, cartoons, puns and rhythms in ways that are often memorable, enjoyable and amusing. New ads evoke comment. The words and details of ads often come to people’s minds more readily than those of novels or poems and plays, and they are often recalled with more laughter and enthusiasm. Yet it is often a love hate relationship: one which frequently causes unease, and in which the love is often denied. It seems that with many ads, we suffer a split contradictory reaction: involuntary spontaneous enjoyment or a conscious reflective rejection. With other genres we usually know where our loyalties lie but with ads, we are just confused (Cook 2003, p. 3). Redfern (1982, p. 275) asserts that puns are well suited for advertising as “they are usually delivered with the requisite ambivalent mixture of false apology and only too real aggression.”

In print ads especially, headlines and slogans are presented in ways that attract the attention of those readers who might just be browsing through a magazine. These messages are communicated in entertaining and humorous ways and this allows the reader to linger longer over a given ad. Puns are typical of this in that they “surprise and entertain, expressing multiple meanings with a single word of phrase” (McQuarrie & Mick 1992, p. 180). A pun can be also defined as an ambiguity and more specifically, a fore grounded lexical ambiguity that often deviates from linguistic norms (Crystal 1992). Ambiguity in this sense applies to the multiplicity of meanings that can be

PUNS

― 53 ―

derived from a particular ad and this ambiguity could enhance the ads appeal. When faced with an ad that entails a deviation away from the expected meaning, viewers must first process the literal language used in the message and then make the “leap” to understand the deviation. Eco (1976, p. 261) makes the point that, “an aesthetic text involves a very particular labor, i.e. a particular manipulation of expression” and it is this “manipulation of expression” that presents itself as ambiguous. This ambiguity has the potential to create incongruity and other forms of conflict that in turn could create “tension” in the receiver of a message (Venturi 1966). This “tension” can be resolved once the reader succeeds in decoding the message and this produces a realization of meaning that creates a pleasant surprise. Thus, the pun involves the use of a polysemous word to suggest two or more meanings and this is usually the literal meaning versus the figurative meaning. Following from Barthes (1985, p. 21), polysemy is connected with how certain signs within an ad are made to convey extra meaning that they would not have on the surface. Consequently, advertisers use words that sound alike, but are conceptually unrelated and as these words have the same form but different meaning this can present an ambiguity. As many ads contain some degree of incongruity, any meaning to be derived from them becomes complicated as audiences try to make inferences based on the ads relevance.

In the example for Twix Chocolate (appendix a), the slogan “A break for from the Norm” has two levels of meaning. On one level, the literal level appeals to the consumer to try TWIX and break away from the monotony of other chocolates. On the other level though, the figurative meaning relates to the association with the person called Norm (short for Norman) featured in the ad. Therefore, the association with chocolate and Norm (the person) creates an ambiguity which may or may not be recognized as a pun by the reader of the ad. Leach (1976, p. 25) states that a pun “forbids us to recognize that the sound pattern is ambiguous” and as such, a reader might not recognize the ambiguity of a given pun because there is something about it that prevents such a recognition. The success of communication depends on the hearer’s recovery of the speaker’s intended interpretation, and not merely their recognition of its linguistic meaning (Sperber & Wilson 1995, p. 23). So in the case of an ambiguous utterance, it becomes equivocal when a hearer is unable to assume a single meaning and ultimately communication fails altogether when ambiguity is unresolved because

― 54 ―

愛知大学　言語と文化　No. 16

the speaker’s intentions are unclear (Tanaka 1994, p. 61). Attridge (1988, p. 141) says that the pun “is not just an ambiguity that has crept into an utterance unawares, to embarrass or amuse before being dismissed; it is ambiguity unashamed of itself (his italics). In addition he states that:

In place of a context designed to suppress latent ambiguity, the punis a product of a context deliberately constructed to enforce anambiguity, to render impossible the choice between meanings, toleave the reader or hearer endlessly oscillating in semantic space (ibid).

When a pun is used in an ad, it adds an alien set of referends to a text that multiply meaning and totally undermine the explicit (Ahl 1988, p. 21). In trying to decipher the multiple meanings embedded in a particular ad, advertisers deliberately cause their audience extra processing efforts. Compared with explicit language, the use of puns have a significant effect on the cognitive processing, attitude and memory and as such will be processed more deeply. This extra processing helps to sustain the audience’s attention for longer and makes the ad that more memorable. In the ad for Ben Sherman Deo Body Spray (appendix b), the pun emerges from the fact that Ben Sherman is a brand name that is associated with making shirts. As an extension of this, the slogan “Don’t smell like shirt” also refers to the fact that body odour can be quite unpleasant and so as to avoid smelling sweaty and ultimately unpleasant, the reader is encouraged to try the Deo body Spray as an ideal substitute to body odour. On initial viewing of this ad, the reader is confronted with the headline that appears ambiguous on the surface. However, further processing coupled with the image presented provides another meaning and this is the one intended by the advertiser. That is, by using Ben Sherman’s Deo Body Spray you will smell nice. Tanaka (1994, p. 65) refers to this type of pun as a nonsense pun as its initial meaning is “nonsensical and has to be rejected in favour of another interpretation, which is the one intended by the communicator.” In effect, the advertisers say one thing but suggest something completely different. Basically, advertisers send messages that purport to represent some state of affairs but instead are “skewed by some linguistic mismatch — a word with a double meaning or a construction that makes a false connection” (Bolinger 1980, p. 107).

PUNS

― 55 ―

Analysis

Wordplay, with its distortions, bifurcations and re-creations, introduces variety and refreshment into saturation and puns are no exception (Redfern 1982, p. 269). The crafty ones are a way to navigate through the confusion of other ads thus providing “a recipe for mass-produced boredom” (ibid). Ads enclose us more and more in a world that needs to be interpreted and as such, language is the basic element in creating the hermeneutic of an ad (Williamson 2004, p. 71).4 This is an interpretation that is along given channels, which lead away from the interpreted object, to a ‘meaning’ behind or beyond it or even ‘inside it’ (ibid). The ads presented below are all examples of homonymic puns and they are homologous in the sense that there is a repetition of a word in two different senses. Thus, these ads use puns that involve the use of a polysemous word to suggest at least two different meaning that are unrelated to communicate their message. This usage creates extra layers of meaning that the reader has to resolve through the various interpretations and extra processing needed to decipher them.

The ad in appendix c is for Capri Cigarettes and the caption reads, She’s gone to Capri and she’s not coming back. In this ad the homonymic pun is based on the similarity between a place called Capri (an island in Italy) and the brand of cigarettes called Capri and this presents a false homology. Homology is any similarity or correspondence that involves an element that is forced to bear double meaning and this homology is considered “false” as it presents the reader with an incongruity. One interpretation that can be gleaned from this ad, and based on the caption presented is that a woman has left her present abode to live in a place called “Capri” and because she likes where she lives now, she has no plans of returning to where she lived before. The visual image shows an image of a place that might be Capri and that also helps to arrive at this initial interpretation of the ad. Another interpretation of the ad is that a woman has changed her cigarette brand to “Capri” and because of her satisfaction with this new brand she has no intention of smoking her old brand again. It is the two senses of the word Capri that causes the polysemous incongruity here and although the pun in this

4 Hermeneutic is a term used to define interpreting as it pertains to deciphering a code or the message embedded in an ad.

― 56 ―

愛知大学　言語と文化　No. 16

example communicates two meanings, the advertiser communicates a single message even if he intends to activate two or more interpretations. That is, Capri is a much more preferable brand of cigarette than your current brand and once you smoke it you will realize this and change.

In the next ad for Carte D’Or Ice Cream (appendix d) the pun stems from the duality of meaning surrounding the word “tub”. As in the previous ad, an incongruity does exist and this is as a result of the juxtaposition between the verbal and visual aspects of this ad. On one level and in relation to the image presented, the slogan “Now in four equal tubs” refers to the four women in bathtubs eating ice cream. On another lever, the slogan informs the reader that Carte D’or is now available to buy and indeed enjoy in four equal tubs. From a semiotic point of view,5 the process of enjoying a bath is being linked to that of enjoying ice cream. As such, indulging in a bubble bath and the feelings that this creates such as pleasure and a state of complete relaxation are being transferred to the enjoyment of ice cream. A transfer of meaning has thus occurred in which the meaning of the ad in terms of the feelings it invokes is transferred to the product. Consequently, the juxtaposition of the visual image and the product produces a “false homology” in as much as there is no line of argument to link them as they are both (the visual image and the product), unrelated entities. Thus an expectation has been violated which has arisen from the false connection between bathtubs and ice cream. In the end, the meaning that can be assigned to this ad and the one intended by the advertiser is that by eating Carte D’Or ice cream, you will experience great pleasure and enjoyment.

In the ad for Neutrogena Body Oil (appendix e) the slogan reads, wear something silky after the shower and again the verbal text is represented by a pun in which the word “silky” communicates two meanings. On the one hand and in light of the visual image present, the ad relates to using Neutrogena Body Oil after a shower and how it makes the skin feel soft and silky and this could be said to be the literal meaning of the ad. On the other hand however, the additional meaning linked to the word “silky” is suggestive of a romantic encounter in which a woman might slip into a negligee after

5 Semiotics focuses on the structure of meaning producing events, both verbal and non-verbal.

PUNS

― 57 ―

a shower. Thus the ad sets out to inform the reader that by using Neutrogena Body Oil, their bodies will feel smooth, soft, silk and sensual. From a semiotic standpoint then, the notion of feeling that is portrayed in this ad functions as a sign that in turn points to the product.6 As a consequence of this, the feeling attributed to the product and the product itself, become interchangeable as signifier and signified (Williamson 1978:31).7

In the next ad for Impulse Body Spray (appendix f ) the slogan reads, “Are you ready to feel this fresh?” and a woman is shown eating a lemon. This pun in this ad rests on the double meaning of the word “fresh” and in this example it is both verbal and visual. From the image of the woman eating a lemon, the reader will link this to the word “fresh” to find meaning and then try to understand it in terms of how the word is being used to describe the freshness of the lemon in relation to how it tastes and possibly how it feels. In relation to the body spray, the word “fresh” is being used to express how you will feel after using the product and as such “fresh” equates to being cool and feeling invigorated. Although the homology between the lemon and body spray is, strictly speaking false, its usages invites the reader to find a link between the two and in so doing, to resolve the incongruity.

In the ad for Farley’s Baby Milk (appendix g), the image shows a man holding a baby (presumably his) whilst pouring some milk with his wife (?) in the background sleeping. The headline reads, In 1906 men started pleasing women at night. The word “pleasing” here takes on a double meaning as on one level, it relates to how the man’s wife must feel now he has taken on the role of care and therefore wakes up in the middle of the night to feed the baby whilst she sleeps. This is a clear reversal of roles given the time and as such, the woman is “pleased” with her husband for taking on this extra responsibility. On another level, the slogan introduces a double entendre with the slight implication of a sexual connotation based on the idea that the man can also be said to be “pleasing” his way wife by satisfying her in a sexual way. Given the visual

6 A sign is anything that can stand for something to someone in a given context. 7 A Sign consists of a Signifier, the material object, and the Signified, which is its meaning. In

practice, a sign is always thing-plus-meaning.

― 58 ―

愛知大学　言語と文化　No. 16

image of the ad however, the reader is most likely inclined to reject the latter interpretation and stick with the former in order to find the real meaning of the ad. Thus figurative language and language in general, becomes polysemous in its use and this allows extra meaning to be conveyed depending on the context.

Conclusion

Language as a whole is able to make specific references about things and in advertising language, colloquialisms are constantly used in order to do this and these are seen as “distance reducing devices”. That is, they break down the distance between advertiser and consumer (Vorlat 1976, p. 299). Similarly, another category of puns used in advertising is slang and when these puns are used, the advertiser is stressing the contemporaneity of a product (Kolin 1977, p. 30). Subsequently, this show of familiarity with the language allows the advertiser to create a relationship of sorts with the consumer. From the analysis presented it can be seen that the use of puns in advertising may be especially important in achieving the advertiser’s goal in certain social situations. By using a pun, the advertiser is able to make an ad stand out and this has the potential to accomplish certain communicative goals better than if the message was expressed literally. The extra processing effort needed to process a pun helps to sustain the audience’s attention for longer and this in turn makes the ad more memorable and as such, it can be said that the pun has the discourse goal of informing. Although it has been shown that a pun can communicate more than one meaning, one of which is that intended by the advertiser, Culler (1988:25) argues that, “before concluding that a writer intends only one of its meanings, we should carefully examine the possibility that he intends more.” And as puns don’t always work or work only dubiously, the advertiser has to assume some of the responsibility in communicating a message so that it can be understood. In its usage, the pun depends on chance similarities, and undermines the logical relationship of language (Myers 1994, p. 75) and this has a great appeal to advertisers. Consequently,

Advertising simultaneously treats its consumers asintelligent (they must see the joke, make the connexion,seize the allusion) and gullible, in that the satisfactionafforded by the former exercise will assist the ulterior

PUNS

― 59 ―

aim of selling the product (Redfern 1982, p. 275).

In the final analysis, and as has been mentioned throughout this article, the pun is an integral part of our language and it should be embraced as such. Advertisers have seen the benefit of using puns in their ads and it is evident from the analysis presented that they will continue to do so. Although skeptics will continue to disapprove of puns and deem them as disreputable, the pun continues to reigns supreme. Walsh (cited Sherzer 1978, p. 335) puts this quite eloquently when he states that, “if punning didn’t exist, man would have to invent it to save society from the rigor mortis of syntax.”

ReferencesAhl, F., 1988. Art in Puns and Anagrams Engraved. In: J. Culler, ed. On Puns: The Foundation

of Letters. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.Attridge, D., 1988. Unpacking the Portmanteau, or Who’s Afraid of Finnegans Wake? In: J. Culler,

ed. On Puns: The Foundation of Letters. Oxford: Blackwell Ltd.Barthes, R., 1985. The Rhetoric of the Image. In: The Responsibility of Forms. New York: Hill

and Wang.Bertuccelli Papi, M., 1996. Insinuating: The Seduction of Unsaying. Pragmatics, 9, (4), 191–

204.Bolinger, D., 1980. Language: The Loaded Weapon. London: Longman.Cook, G., 2003. The Discourse of Advertising. London: Routledge.Crystal, D., 1992. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language and Languages. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishers.Culler, J., 1988. On Puns: The Foundation of Letters. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.Durand, J., 1987. Rhetorical Figures in the Advertising Image. In: J. Umiker-Sebeok, ed.

Marketing and Semiotics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Dyer, G., 1982. Advertising as Communication. London: Metheun & Company.Eco, U., 1976. A Theory of Semiotics. London: Macmillan Press.Fogelin, R., 1988. Figuratively Speaking. New Haven: Yale University Press.Gibbs, R., Buchalter, D., Moise, J. and Farrer, W., 1993. Literal Meaning and Figurative Language.

Discourse Processes, 16, 387–403.Grice, H., 1975. Logic and Conversation. In: P. Cole and J. L. Morgan, eds. Syntax and Semantics:

Volume 3, Speech Acts, 41–58.Grice, H., 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

― 60 ―

愛知大学　言語と文化　No. 16

Harris, A., 1989. Sell! Buy! Semiolinguistic Manipulation in Print Advertising [online]. California State University. Available from: www.csun.edu/

Katz, A., Cacciari, C., Gibbs, R. and Turner, M., 1998. Figurative Language and Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Keyser, B., 1994. Discourse Contexts Effects: Metaphorical and Literal Interpretations. Discourse Processes, 8, 247–269.

Kolin, P. C., 1977. Paronomastic Announcements; or, How to Have a Little Pun With Your Ads. American Speech, 52, (1/2), 29–38.

Langholz-Leymore, V., 1987. The Structure is the Message: The Case of Advertising. In: J. Umiker-Sebeok, ed. Marketing and Semiotics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Leach, E., 1976. Culture and Communication: The Logic by Which Symbols are Connected. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leigh, J., 1994. The Use of Figures of Speech in Print Headlines. Journal of Advertising Research, 23, (2), 17–33.

McQuarrie, E. and Mick, D., 1992. On Resonance: A Critical Pluralistic Inquiry into Advertising Rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 180–197.

McQuarrie, E. and Mick, D., 1996. Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 424–438.

Myers, G., 1994. Words in Ads. London: Edward Arnold.Redfern, W., 1982. Guano of the Mind: Puns in Advertising. Language and Communication, 2,

(3), 272–281.Redfern, W., 1982. Puns: More Senses Than One. London: Penguin Books Ltd.Roberts, R. and Kreuz, R., 1994. Why do People Use Figurative Language? Psychological Science,

5, (3), 159–163.Sherzer, J., 1978. Oh! That’s a Pun and I Didn’t know it. Semiotica, 22, (3/4), 335–345.Sperber, D. and Wilson, D., 1998. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil

Blackwell Ltd.Tanaka, K., 1994. Advertising Language. London: Routledge.Thornborrow, J., 1998. Playing Hard to Get: Metaphors and Representation in the Discourse of

Car Advertisements. Language and Literature Review, 7, (3), 254–272.Tom, G. and Eves, A., 1999. The Use of Rhetorical Devices in Advertising. Journal of Adverting

Research, 39, (4), 39–43.Venturi, R., 1966. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. New York: Museum of Modern

Art.Verschueren, J., 1995. The Pragmatic Return to Meaning. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 5,

(2), 127–156.Vorlat, E., 1976. Are the Persuaders Well Hidden. Leuvense Bijdragen, 65, (3), 291–297.Williamson, J., 2004. Decoding Advertisements. London: Marion Boyars Publishing.Yus, F., 1999. Misunderstandings and Explicit/Implicit Communication. Pragmatics, 6, (2),

487–517.

PUNS

― 61 ―

Appendix A Appendix B

Appendix C Appendix D

― 62 ―

愛知大学　言語と文化　No. 16

Appendix E Appendix F

Appendix G